Google Bans Ads For Payday Loans (theverge.com) 134
An anonymous reader writes: Google has decided it doesn't want to promote predatory lending practices that are harmful to consumers, so the company has decided to ban ads for payday loans and some related products from their ads systems. "Research has shown that these loans can result in unaffordable payment and high default rates for users so we will be updating our policies globally to reflect that," Google's product policy director, David Graff, writes in a blog post. Payday loans often come with extremely high interest rates if they aren't paid back immediately, which can push people further in debt. Georgetown's Center on Privacy and Technology notes in a statement, "Payday lenders profit from people's weaknesses -- particularly poor people and people of color. Every time someone clicks on those ads, search engines profit, too." While Google may lose some revenue in the short-run by removing these ads, the move will likely benefit the company in the long-run (positive PR doesn't hurt) as Google users should have more trust in the ads they come across. Payday loans will be banned from Google globally starting June 13th.
Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Please !
Re: (Score:2)
Now when are they going to ban this one weird trick that almost broke the Internet among all the other forms of idiot bait.
I see you are using Adblock Plus. Go into the settings and disable the whitelist of people who paid them (such as Taboola).
If you are using no adblock, you are the sort of people they are baiting.
see your predatory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Call. I've got a pair of Jacks, King high. You?
Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
users should have more trust in the ads they come across
Hahahahaha, no. That ship sailed a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. When I look at internet ads changing over the years they have become increasingly more reliable. They have a long way to go but at least i'm no longer spammed with endless ads about my penis size. At least the occasional advert is now relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
> They have a long way to go but at least i'm no longer spammed with endless ads about my penis size
Even spammers know a lost cause when they see one :P
"People of Color" = weak? (Score:1)
Did he REALLY say that? Ok no exactly but what would make "people of colour’s" weaknesses any more vulnerable than 'white people' (though of course white is a colour too so this whole differentiation is racist to begin with).
O what he MEANT was that by percentage 'people of colour' are more poor than others...but he already said 'pool' so why would the extra distinction be necessary? O, of course so we can throw in the race card of course. But how about we just leave this at 'weaknesses of the poor'..
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh no... He meant what he said.
As a "person of color" I get pretty tired of it. Just 'cause I got a little black and Amerindian in me doesn't mean I need extra aid, thanks.
See, I know this might sound strange but I'm actually kind of offended by affirmative action. Affirmative action is the system saying, "Here, nigger. You can't do it on your own. So, we'll give you a head start because your merits are not good enough in this white man's world."
(I can say nigger, right? 'Cause I got some black in me... Fuc
Re: (Score:2)
I'd not normally dignify you with a response but, how cute. You did exactly what I expected you to do. I know, quite well, what Affirmative Action entails. Thanks.
The part that makes me curious if you're trolling or just stupid would be where you went with needs based. Frankly, if they don't need it then there's no reason to help them. Such is painfully obvious. So, obviously, needy people get a preference because they're needy and not because of the color of their skin.
In addition, I'm not sure that *you*
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a person of color. Pale pinkish-beige is a color.
Re: (Score:2)
Black is the absence of color. White light has all colors if the visible light spectrum.
Why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are more "people of color" that are impoverished than "white people", so the comment is technically correct. (According to this [wikipedia.org], anyway.) So it would be reasonable to assume that non-whites would fall victim to predatory lending at a higher rate than whites. It's not necessarily racist if it's a factually correct statement.
I do, however, agree with you. There is no reason to bring race into this equation, it is done solely for the purpose of "scoring points" (gaining clicks).
Re: Why... (Score:1)
Re:Why... (Score:5, Informative)
That's not the reason. People of color are generally shut out of the same banking products that we take for granted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10... [nytimes.com]
There's been several studies now that show that with a black family and white family with exactly the same income and credit scores, the black family is less likely to be given loans and more likely to be steered toward "sub-prime" type of banking products, even though they're repayment rates are the same.
http://www.epi.org/publication... [epi.org]
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blo... [nerdwallet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno about you, but the only banking products I take for granted are the ones I get online. My mortgage officer never saw me face to face. I never talked to a human being to open any of my credit cards. I'm an immigrant to the US, so I had a worse credit score at first than some of my friends who work in fast food restaurants. I'm white, but the country where my name is most common is Haiti (a coincidence, but people reading it don't know that).
As far as I could tell, all of those loans were essentially gr
Re: (Score:2)
The devil is in the details. What is the interest rate on that credit card?
Online banking isn't for everyone. Believe it or not, there are still a lot of companies who don't do direct deposit. There is a reason there's a bank branch on every other corner on busy streets in white neighborhoods and currency exchanges on every other corner in black neighborhoods. And only a small part of the reason is financi
Re: (Score:2)
Even if your company does direct deposit, often the first check is physical. My bank doesn't have physical locations where I am, and has a very low limit on online deposits.
I just opened an account on some random credit union, took a picture of the check and uploaded it, and then did a (free!) transfer.
Re: (Score:3)
Chase Bank, one of the biggest in the country, has a $500 limit on deposits of checks being photographed and uploaded. So if your check is more than that all you can do is put it in an envelope, put a stamp on it and wait a week to get your pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I think Citibank had a $1000 when I tried, which was a problem too.
I ended up just opening an account online with a credit union that had a $10000 limit. Problem -> solved.
Re: (Score:2)
The devil is in the details. What is the interest rate on that credit card?
Why, why, why would you ever borrow money on a credit card? I mean, I'll admit I took a balance transfer to fund a move once, but that was $5000 for a 3% up-front payment and no interest for a year (by which time I paid it off). Normal "purchase" interest rates on a credit card are insane. Looking at my cards, the range on purchases is 14-24%! The rates are there basically to punish anyone who tries to use a card as a credit facility rather than paying it off every month.
Some payday operations are legal
Re:Why... (Score:5, Interesting)
People of color
Umm, yeah... You might just as well say "niggers." Yes, yes I am a "people of color." You dog-whistle more than Trump, FFS.
shut out of the same banking products that we take for granted
Anecdotes aren't good evidence but I'm still going to point out that I've had a bank account since I was about 5. When I am home, I even sit on the board at the FSFCU. (Credit Union.) In a Credit Union, I don't have a "savings account" but a share. By virtue of the number of shares, I was invited to and often participate in an after-hour Thursday night meeting at said CU.
Now, the question I pose is this: Do you *really* think it's because of the color of their skin or do you think there's an underlying reason that we're just not ready to discuss? 'Cause, I don't really know and I looked at all three of your links and I don't think they actually tried to do any real investigation there.
'Cause, as a "people of color" I can think of a few reasons why such might happen and they're not actually (technically) a matter of race. There's more to a credit score, and the decision to make a loan, than just a number or the color of their skin. Actually, come to think of it, I've checked my credit score before and I don't think I saw the words "People of Color" on that anywhere. I might have missed it.
I am not saying (really, I'm not) that this study is rather patently answering the question with the answer they wanted to get. Give me enough data and I can probably demonstrate that anyone with the word "Pope" in their online user accounts are x% more likely to be pedophiles.
I've got a whole slew of black relatives. (I kind of prefer 'black' over the 'colored' bit - colored was dog-whistle in the South when I was young - as was "boy.") They all, more or less, get the treatment from financial institutions that they deserve. (Mostly pretty good/normal access and I've helped a few out that had some financial issues and they're doing just fine but their financial issues were, to be honest, of their own doing and not because of the color of their skin.)
It might sound racist but there's probably a decent determination that says x-name at x-old-addresses is x% more likely to default. Data, being data, is relatively harmless if used properly. Basically, I'm rather skeptical that the numbers truly indicate anything systemic that's related to race. What it may well do is look at previous addresses (a component for issuing credit) and it's potentially true that those addresses were in a "ghetto" or the likes. That's almost certainly going to make the numbers make it look like banks hate "people of color" (I really, really dislike that term but I'm mostly used to it.) simply because the projects have more black people in them.
I'm also not saying that there is NOT some systemic racism. I'm basically doubting the validity of using those numbers to make a meaningful determination. Those numbers probably also indicate that the banks favor people who drank milk. So, yeah... I'm just not really buying it as something meaningful. Does racism still exist in the US? Of course. I know racist people off all skin tones. But, banks are not particularly keen on failing to maximize their revenue. If the totality (which is, again, more than a score) would make them the same then I'm inclined to think the banks would not be leaving money on the table. That's just not logical or very bank-like.
It's akin to the strange myth that women are paid less than men to do the same job. (Emphasis on the last two words.) If employers could get away with paying women less they'd have given them preferential treatment long ago. And, having been a salary payer, I can't imagine why I'd pay a man more than I'd pay a woman for the same job. (Again, note the last two words.) No, I'm going to pay them the absolute most I can pay them while still keeping the business afloat because happy employees do good work. If I could be chintzy and an ass, and pay less to
Re: (Score:1)
You're drinking again, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think your personal anecdotes are in any way evidence. You have such a high opinion of yourself it's amazing. The evidence is there, and you just don't want to accept it. Strange.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. I think they are just trying to play the race card. It's also a lot easier to trigger the liberal "white man's burden" complex if you make the victim a minority.
trust big corps to protect the poor! hurrah! (Score:2)
so called "payday loans" may indeed be harmful. however there is a method to ban harmful things; democratically enacted legislation. (indeed some states and countries have baned them).
but should we trust and rely on big corps like google to nanny us and make us safe according to their own vague moral code?
would google next decide interest over certain percentage as harmful? perhaps google would decide all interest taking as usury, and ( like some fundamental religious nuts/muslim countries now, and many Ch
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps google would decide all interest taking as usury, and ( like some fundamental religious nuts/muslim countries now, and many Christian ones in past)
All interest taking is usury, and it doesn't take any kind of religious motivation to think so. The word "usury" literally means a fee for use (of money, implicitly, but any other kind of rent is the same thing in practice; and old religious bans on usury didn't account for that).
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for etymology.
i am using word 'usury' in the most common senses currently in use, as defined by top definitions in most dictionaries, which are variations of "charging unreasonable/excessive/illegal rate of interest for loans". and as it was used in religious texts (and translations), and laws influenced by them, which include definition of charging of any interest on loans.
All your attention are belong to us (the google) (Score:2)
This is just a token gesture by the google trying to convince us "Don't be evil" is still relevant, when now the actual motto is "All your attention are belong to google".
Oh yes. It also persuades me that the payday lender ads were not particularly profitable, so the token gesture was cheap enough.
Here are a couple of suggestions that the google could implement if they actually cared about being less evil:
1. Stop supporting scammers in Google Play by exposing the business models. They don't have to force th
Re: (Score:2)
Still hate typos (and I did Preview carefully). Near the end, "They system" should be "The system" or even "Gmail" specifically.
Looking over the other comments, I'm rather astounded by the defenses of loan sharks. Obviously paid shills or actual sharks, but it reminds me to wish that slashdot had some reputation-based options. My own simpleminded setting would probably be to hide any account that is not old enough. Not sure if two months would be long enough, but the setting should be tweakable by the user.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit curious about why you think Google should be checking into a business model - and, really, what does that phrase actually mean?
The second makes me curious... What the hell is "dropboxes?" (I'm kind of fluent in criminal terminology (2 proficiency slots in Thieve's Cant.) What's that?
Also, why would they trust users or are you saying that you should flag them and they should review 'em?
I'm not actually sure why you'd expect Google (or really
Re: (Score:2)
Not "polite request".
Not saying you're a troll or whatever, but that's because I don't care that much about you, at least based upon that "response".
I don't feel like apologizing for writing about complicated topics. If I were a serious author then at least I would care about simplifying my writing or motivating readers to make sufficient efforts to understand them, eh?
So I'll follow your lead and change the topic. My new topic is the moderation system. There should be several orthogonal dimensions with plu
As if poor people are stupid. (Score:2)
If you are poor or have bad money management you may have a choice like.
1) Having your electricity turned off.
2) Overdrafting your checking or exceeding your credit card limit triggering large fees
3) Going to payday lending service and paying the fee.
I assume the payday lending fee is much less than option 2. This is the only reason why banks are so angry and lobby to get rid of their competitors.
Re: (Score:3)
Up here in Canada I watch them line up at places like Moneymart or Cashmoney at baby bonus day and the end of the month when welfare cheques come out. My wife manages a store at kfc and they get slammed with the 3 day millionaires.
Moneymart and cashmoney are always advertising the c
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the check cashing folks have either overdrawn their bank account so much that they're on a blacklist at the bank, or else the account they have is already overdrawn and they don't want the bank to take the money they owe it from their check, which is what'll happen if they deposit it.
For the target audience of payday l
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Google's new policy is the one that's actually regressive.
If anybody wants to hear a dispassionate discussion of the issues, try here:
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/red... [podtrac.com]
Will Google lend them money? (Score:1)
So will Google lend money to these high risk, low equity individuals, whose only way to live through the month before the next paycheck arrives may be by borrowing money from these so called 'loan sharks', people who are willing to lend money out to the highest risk individuals?
Re: (Score:2)
Banks had a government guarantee, so it turned out exactly like a moral hazard is supposed to.
Re: (Score:1)
The Orwellian idiot strikes again. Google hiding ads for loan businesses is nanny state protection, who declared Google to be the government? They have the right to discriminate of-course, so it's their right to hide whatever they want in their search results, but their morals will hurt people looking for payday loans in the free market.
Not convinced of the effectiveness (Score:2)
It's a nice gesture, but they need to drive through my old neighborhood sometime. In the southeast, it used to be that the liquor store to church ratio was the gauge of a town's squalor. These days, you can't go drive down a street without passing a handful of payday loan places. Internet advertising isn't to draw people in who otherwise wouldn't consider a payday loan, it's to make sure your slice of the pie is the biggest. Some cities pass ordinances limiting the number of payday loan places, but in many
If you're an employer, you can help (Score:5, Insightful)
When I learned that a not-insignificant number of our employees were using these, I got the board to approve no-fee advances on your paycheck for emergencies (i.e. on request once a month, after manager approval if you needed it more often - to prevent someone from abusing this to go from living paycheck-to-paycheck, to living half-paycheck-to-half-paycheck). If you're one week into the 2-week pay period, you've already earned your pay for that first week. The company is just holding onto your money to simplify the bookkeeping. If you have an emergency and need to tap that paycheck early, there's really no reason for the company to refuse (unless they're also surviving payroll to payroll).
The long-term solution is to build up enough savings so you aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck. But employer-approved pay advances can help stop someone from slipping into the negative due to a one-time unexpected expense, at which point these loan sharks will make sure they stay underwater.
And contrary to what someone else commented, these loans do not prey on poor people. This isn't an income problem, it's a cashflow problem. You can be poor (low income) and never need a payday loan (income > expenses, and have sufficient savings to tide you over to next paycheck in the event of an emergency). These loans prey on people living paycheck-to-paycheck. You can be rich and run into the exact same problem if your expenses exceed your income and you don't have a savings buffer. That's how professional athletes and celebrities wind up going bankrupt.
Re: (Score:3)
This is going to sound really, really crazy - but hear me out.
The employers can help (I know, I used to be one and I still do) by actually paying your employees to live comfortably and having the chance to build up security equity with myriad methods.
I know that paying your employees well is a crazy idea but I had pretty good results with it. Unadjusted, in 1998 or so, we paid anywhere from 90 to 120k to start programmers who could learn modeling and domain-specific topics and we paid engineers just about t
Re: (Score:2)
And contrary to what someone else commented, these loans do not prey on poor people. This isn't an income problem, it's a cashflow problem. You can be poor (low income) and never need a payday loan (income > expenses, and have sufficient savings to tide you over to next paycheck in the event of an emergency). These loans prey on people living paycheck-to-paycheck.
THIS. A lot of people who take out these loans are poor people who have "gotten by" pretty well for a while, but they are hit by a sudden issue where they need a chunk of cash quickly. If they don't have an emergency reserve, payday loans may be their only option.
And I think it's important to note that we don't solve these persons' problems just by shutting down the payday loan industry through regulation (or by Google not running ads for them). This is the economic catch-22 of credit regulation -- eve
Re: (Score:3)
That may be, but do you really think that athletes and celebrities take out payday loans?
Yes, how do you think Rick at Gold and Silver Pawn Shop ends up with so many gold medals and Super Bowl rings?
Well it depends, doesn't it? (Score:2)
If your car breaks down and you take a payday loan to get it fixed and not lose what job you have, it's a positive development for you even if you have to pay extra $20 on pay day. If you end up taking a loan before every paycheck, not so much.
Bottom line, even low income / high risk individuals can benefit from access to some kind of legal credit, even on lousy terms. Lots in developing world don't, hence the movement to provide microloans.
In the ideal world, payday lenders would be akin to credit unions,
ban ads with DOWNLOAD buttons (Score:5, Interesting)
Dear Google, please also ban ads with great big "download" buttons on software-download pages. I hate those. Their sole point is to deceive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google harms the most vulnerable (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a fair point, but I don't know if a direct comparison to prostitution is reasonable. The obligatory John Oliver segment [youtube.com] does point out that they are as close to illegal fraud as anything in the banking industry, and if you cut advertising, you should reduce the number of customers.
Re: (Score:2)
"they are as close to illegal fraud as anything in the banking industry"
Could have saved some words and just said "they are legal".
Re: (Score:2)
"they are as close to illegal fraud as anything in the banking industry"
Could have saved some words and just said "they are legal".
No, there is real political effort to stop this kind of business... But it's hard...
And oh, they are most likely are illegal it's just hard to prove that their intentions are bad (Note: having bad intentions is rarely legal).
But really, this comes down to you not electing politicians who is willing to work on fixing (A) the political system, or (B) all of these types of "crimes" where regulatory and enforcement agencies don't have enough proof to shut them down.
Re: (Score:2)
"No, there is real political effort to stop this kind of business... But it's hard...
And oh, they are most likely are illegal it's just hard to prove that their intentions are bad (Note: having bad intentions is rarely legal)."
You mean like selling pot?
Or selling tobacco?
Or selling porn?
What is a good or bad intention? Is making money a bad intention? Is stopping people from getting high a bad intention?
I do agree that they are scum and do prey on desperate people but they are legal. Do you want Google to c
Re: (Score:1)
>Do you want Google to censor ads based on ethics?
Yes.
> If so who's ethics.
Their own. Because much as I despise their ethics on virtually every topic - it is the right of every free citizen to only allow, on their own property, behavior that accords with their own ethics and this is just about the only case where a corporation actually SHOULD have the same right as a citizen. It's google's ad network, and google's sites - and they have every right to decide what content they are willing to host on it.
Re: (Score:2)
"it is the right of every free citizen to only allow, on their own property, behavior that accords with their own ethics"
So where do you stand on the gay cake/bakery situation?
Or Citizens United?
Re:Google harms the most vulnerable (Score:4, Insightful)
If Bruce Springsteen and Michael Moore can refuse to do business in North Carolina then why should a bakery have to do business with someone they disagree with?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's me try that too:
If the US can refuse to do business in North Korea then why should a bakery have to do business with someone they disagree with?
On topic, if as a baker you have circumstantial evidence to think the cake will be used to commit a crime, you can also refuse.
If sued for discrimination the requirement for evidence isn't the same, as in a criminal case against the cake-buyer...
Or one could argue that there is a difference between people and corporations
Re: Google harms the most vulnerable (Score:2)
Gay cake bakery: civil rights act. The right not to be discriminated against is protected and your right to freedom of association cannot intrude on it. Neither does property rights apply in a business which serves the public. Refusing to serve a gay customer is no different from putting a whites-only sign in the window.
Companies however are not people, cannot be discriminated against and dont have civil liberties.
Citizens united extended a legal right that nobody should have at all. Bribery is not protecte
Re: (Score:2)
... so your principles about rights of free people stood as long as 90 minutes before crumbling before political correctness ... maybe that's a record
Re: (Score:2)
The rights of free people can only exist if there are limits to them - otherwise NOBODY has freedom. And political correctness is merely the term people use for "respecting OTHER people's freedom" when they don't.
More importantly - none of your examples WERE individuals. Businesses are NOT individuals and don't HAVE the rights of free peoples. They have a limited subset there-off - in order to maximize the liberty of the people that subset should at all times be kept as minimal as possible, the bare minimum
Re: (Score:2)
A business is a group of people.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. Not even slightly. A business is a distinct legal person - that happens to have contracts with a group of people, it is not a human being nor is it a group of human beings.
Each of those individuals whom it has some sort of contract with (including the ones with whom that contract is "owns shares") are free to act as individuals on their own behalf - but when acting within the confines of the contract that lets them represent the business they only have the limited subset of freedoms that the b
Re: (Score:2)
Are you by any chance confusing ... sole proprietorships / partnerships / corporations?
And more importantly, reality / legal fictions? When you want to control what a business does, you want to control what the people who ganged together to form it do. Just because there is a level of indirection doesn't make a mandate any less imposed on human beings.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't and hasn't been for more than 200 years. That definition became invalid the day we passed the first limited liability law. If a business was a group of people then limited liability would be a travesty of justice that absolutely flies in the face of the principle of equal before the law.
Limited liability could only be made law in the free world by defining a business as NOT a group of people but a completely distinct legal entity which is not human but has contracts with a lot of people.
For som
Re: (Score:2)
>Are you by any chance confusing ... sole proprietorships / partnerships / corporations?
There is no difference relevant to the topic at hand. If the sole propietorship was it's owner, then it's owner's assets would be at stake if it went bankrupt.
>When you want to control what a business does, you want to control what the people who ganged together to form it do
Nope. You're doubly-wrong. Firstly I never proposed controlling what a business does - I proposed restricting what it can do, there is an impo
Re: (Score:2)
A business is a group of people.
Have the people who make up a business lost any of their individual rights by virtue of being connected with the business such that the business has to be given rights to compensate? I don't think so.
We grant corporations certain aspects of personhood so they can be treated as a single entity in the legal system but since corporations don't exist outside of the laws that define what they are they have no rights except what are granted in those laws.
Re: (Score:3)
"they prey on desperate people that have no one else to turn to"
Let's pretend that is literally true. What's going to be the outcome if you get your way and these "scummy businesses" don't exist any more? These desperate people will have literally no one to turn to. You've just hurt them even more.
Re: (Score:1)
Only if getting rid of the predators is all you do - sane people consider that step one.
First get rid of the predators, then establish something better in it's place.
Like say - a cooperative zero-interest bank that can give out emergency loans or a working social safety net that protects people from NEEDING payday loans to survive ?
Re: (Score:3)
"sane people consider that step one"
You know what's even more sane? Establishing and testing an alternative before shutting down the only solution that already exists.
Re: Google harms the most vulnerable (Score:3)
Predators are not a solution. A solution by definition is NOT something that makes the original problem (lack of money in this case) worse.
In my youth on a tiny starting salary I fell short of money once. I went to a payday loan company because I didnt know better. But because tge charges were so high I was even more short the next month... after six months I would actuallt need to borrow more than my salary to cover the shortfall...
I was trapped with zero way out. My problem was not solved - it was exacerb
Re: (Score:2)
"Most people lose everything they ever had."
[citation needed]
"I was trapped with zero way out."
See bankruptcy.
"That is not a fucking solution."
True, I'm not aware of any payday onanism loans.
Re: Google harms the most vulnerable (Score:3)
Bankruptcy = having your assets siezed to settle as much debt as possible in return for not having to pay all of it. I.e losing everything you ever had.
You demanded a citation then gave name of the process you wanted as a solution !
Bankruptcy is only an improvement over being jailed for debt. It is not a good thing.
You want viable solutionsq ? Welfare based emergency aid finance. Nonprofit interest free loan organisations. Universal basic income. There you go. Three possible viable solutions. Why would you
Re: (Score:2)
"You want viable solutions? Welfare based emergency aid finance. Nonprofit interest free loan organisations. Universal basic income. There you go. Three possible viable solutions."
Make those "viable" solutions alive then. Then you won't even have to agitate for the banning of payday loan services - people will naturally leave them. (Well, as long as the welfare money tree keeps blooming.)
Re: Google harms the most vulnerable (Score:2)
Those are things we need to get government to do. Google cannot do them. It can howevee mitigate the harm by choosing not to market companies that makes things worse.
I really do not want to live in a world where companies have more power than that.
Re: (Score:2)
So again, your "viable" alternatives are not even fertilized, born, never mind mature. But you're so sure that customers are hurting themselves, and that they must all be protected from their own possibly silentcoder-disapproved decisions.
Why do you patronize and hate the poor so?
Re: Google harms the most vulnerable (Score:2)
Yeah... i "patronize" people by saying "i made that mistake myself once and nothing but dumb luck gave me a better outcome". On the contrary my argument was "there but for the grace of god go I" - except that Im an atheist.
It is mathematically impossible for payday loans not to make things worse. Ergo they are fraudulent.
Even so, even if you persist in the insane belief that their business model is not to finance as protection rackets are to insurance it is not relevant. Nobody at all banned them. Nobody e
Re: (Score:2)
> I.e losing everything you ever had.
People that use these kinds of loans already have ZERO assets. Full liquidation is not going to hurt them any worse than they are already. In general there's this persistent hysterical fear of bankruptcy among proles. Meanwhile the 1% view it as just another legal tool.
Re: (Score:2)
> Meanwhile the 1% view it as just another legal tool.
For the one percent it doesn't mean NEVER having a chance to stop being poor. It doesn't mean being excluded from ever having a better job, or ever owning a home. That's what it means if you're working class however.
Re: (Score:2)
There must be some effort. They outlawed them in Arkansas. A bunch shut down right away around my town after that law was passed.
Re: (Score:2)
"they are as close to illegal fraud as anything in the banking industry"
But they are legal. Do you really want Google to censor legal ads that it feels are immoral or unethical?
If so then everyone should have the right to censor.
Re: (Score:1)
>Do you really want Google to censor legal ads that it feels are immoral or unethical?
Yes.
>If so then everyone should have the right to censor.
Everyone already does - to exactly the same extent google does. Can I DEMAND that you keep hardcore German fetish porn mags on your coffee table ? Or is it your right to choose NOT to have it in your house if you don't want to ? For that matter can I FORCE you to keep a Bible in your house where it is prominently visible to all visitors ?
No I can do none of tha
Re: (Score:2)
Okay then you can not complain when WalMart only sells clean versions of albums or if google does not want to run ads for a political candidate you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I can. I will defend their right to do so - but I will ALSO defend my right to complain if they do.
Re: (Score:2)
So you want to restrict their rights?
Re: Google harms the most vulnerable (Score:2)
No. How does my complaining restrict their rights ? Thats right ! It doesn't. I can only change their behavior with persuasion.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that censorship is okay as long as you agree with it?
Frankly I do agree with Google doing this but the militant anti censorship folks are always so ready to attack any perceived censorship I decided to play devil's advocate.
I have no problem with Walmart only selling clean versions of albums because frankly only Walmart has the power to force the record companies to produce a clean version. AKA it means more options for the consumer since you can buy albums in more that one store.
Frankly I do n
Re: (Score:2)
>So you think that censorship is okay as long as you agree with it?
You're the only one who has promoted censorship. I was promoting NOBODY being censored.
Wallmart gets to promote and not promote whatever they want.
I get to say about that whatever I want.
Neither party is censored.
Indeed - neither party CAN ever censor anybody. Censorship can only be done by somebody with serious authority (like a government). Wallmart may choose to stock only clean albums - other retailers will still sell the rest. I may
Re: (Score:2)
They can do what they want, as they are not the government. Or are you saying that everyone should be able to be coerced into saying what anyone else wants them to say?
It is not mutually exclusive to be for someone's rights, disagree with how they are using their rights, voice your disagreements, and not be guilty of censorship.
You are terrible at this. Really, really bad. You are getting incredibly confused about some very basic concepts you appear to think you support very strongly.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said that is how also how I feel. I am just shocked to see someone on Slashdot feel the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
>As opposed to legal fraud?
Yes, for example defrauding somebody by using a legal loophole or a badly written law to avoid being prosecuted for something that is clearly "gaining his money through deceptive practices".
Re: (Score:1)
Even if such loans are "predatory" and "harmful" to consumers, this will just increase the strength of the variables that Google sees as being predatory and harmful in the first place. It's unfortunate that, due to either ignorance or cynicism, Google is the one harming consumers the most. http://reason.com/blog/2016/05... [reason.com]
The Reason article is just one long Nivana fallacy/perfect solution fallacy.
Also, it keeps comparing governments banning stuff to Google (a private company) doing so. There is a big difference between a government and a private company in cases like this. Since they are presenting a libertarian argument, they should know the old libertarian counter argument about private companies - if you don't like what Google is doing, use Bing or some other search engine.
Re:Google harms the most vulnerable (Score:5, Interesting)
That kind of depends on the Libertarian. Fraud is, after all, never acceptable to those who truly tout the ideals of a free market.
However, Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model - though many have somehow managed to conflate the two. I, for example, would prefer the nomenclature "Classic Libertarian" but the most descriptive is "Socialist Libertarian." You might, if you're European, think of me as a Social Democrat but for very different reasons.
My ideal being, of course, the maximum opportunity to use one's freedoms to best enjoy one's liberties. And no, those two words are not synonymous.
I'd type more and, indeed, I started to. However, it's likely futility and I'm impatient today. If you've any questions or doubts then I'd refer you to the Wikipedia article. It is, oddly, actually fairly accurate and well done. I'm not exactly sure how the Randians (for wont of a better name) managed to overlook it. They've pretty much usurped the party and the rest of the world has been duped into believing some really odd things.
For example, once upon a time - we Libertarians were the kooky left. Yup... Now, somehow, we're the crazy right - but I've not really changed any of my beliefs except to refine them over these many years. I'm a Socialist Libertarian because it's the most logical position and that's different than the typical left. I used facts, reason, logic, and math to reach this position. (It's cheaper to feed you than it is to hire goons to keep you from stealing my stuff. I like my stuff, that's why I bought it. It's cheaper and easier to keep you healthy and educated than it is to clean up after your mess. It's not just my liberty that matters - your liberty is of as much importance to me as my own. That sort of thing.)
So, yeah, a Libertarian position would be that anyone defrauding needs to be punished and prevented from doing so. We're not (generally) Anarchists. We believe companies should provide the goods they say they'll provide BUT you should (I suppose) have the opportunity to make an informed choice and select a lesser product provided you harm no others with it. See, Liberty (caps on purpose) is really only valuable if we maximize if for everyone. It does us no good if just a few have access - that's how you get violence and have to clean up messes. A company can, I suppose, sell shit in a sack but they damned well better sell shit in a sack that is honestly marketed as such and contains the shit they said it will contain. A fairly free market (free markets don't exist and never will) doesn't work with fraud.
Yeah, I know, I wasted my time and folks will keep on believing what they want but, there you go. That's a Libertarian speaking to you. (I've been involved with the party since 1978 or so.) Yeah, we've got our share of idiots in the party or claiming to speak for the party but every party has those. To put it into perspective, I'd far prefer Sanders than any other candidate in the US race but he's certainly not ideal. He also isn't very honest and that's unfortunate.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice write-up. (I was an 18 yr old family-tradition Republican when I first voted in '72, but I was registered Libertarian by '74.) The only thing missing is a link to the World's Smallest Political Quiz [theadvocates.org] (ten agree/disagree statements - five on personal issues, five on financial.)
You may not agree with the results interpretation, but the two dimensional political field representation is still of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like a Libertarian in the vein of author and astrophysicist David Brin. I check out his web page "Contrary Brin" from time to time and find it interesting. You might too.
Re: (Score:2)
In the context of monopolies, companies that are merely dominant, or companies too large to fail, such abuses can't be swept under the rug. The founding fathers despised big business as much as big government. There just wasn't as much of it then. Otherwise they might have directed more attention to it.
They would likely distrust Google as much as the British East India Company.
Corporate censorship isn't any better than when the government does it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we just need to ban ads. Tout suite!
There, much better now.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get any junk mail at all from the RNC (or the DNC for that matter). You must have gotten on their mailing list somehow.
However, even though both parties are very similar in many ways, they are beholden to different industries. The Republicans are in bed with the fossil fuel industry, for instance. Meanwhile, the Democrats are in bed with the media industries (MPAA/RIAA) as well as the payday-loan industry.
It's honestly really disgusting that the party that claims to be in favor of helping poor pe